Sheshbazzar

So you want to just toss out everything written in Acts ? Be my guest

Let's see a few of the things that go out with the trash;

1. No Holy Spirit was received by the Apostles on the Day of Pentecost. because Paul wasn't there and Paul didn't write it, and as will be demonstrated by the following, whoever did write it was, according to you, a habitual liar.

2. Forget all of that Scripture quoting in the Book of Acts, ... none of it ever happened, because Paul didn't write it. And whoever did write it lied about Paul.

3. Peter never said 'Repent and be baptized everyone of you...' because Paul didn't write it. And whoever did write about it lied about Paul.

4. Saul never had any vision on the road to Damascus, because Paul never wrote about it, And whoever did write about it lied about Paul.

5. Paul never made the speech to the Jews of Acts 21:40 & Acts 22, , Because Paul never wrote about it. And whoever did write about it lied about Paul.

6. Nor did Paul ever make the speech to Agrippa related in Acts 26, because Paul never wrote about it. And whoever did write about it lied about Paul.

7. All of Acts 27 & 28 never happened, And whoever wrote it lied about Paul.

So there you have it, around three quarters of the Book of Acts is about the adventures of Paul, and Paul didn't write it, and whoever did write it was one hell of a liar.

Why would you accept anything else written in Acts when you have already concluded that whoever wrote Acts lied through their teeth in three quarters of the text?

.

Duvduv

Here again would seem to be a case where an opponent is actually used in a backhanded way to support the underlying premise of the Christian claim.

Personally I think my statement above is an apt description of the intention of the polemics ostensibly expressed by the enemies of the Church in order to legitimize the church's doctrines by offering comparable ideas in the mouths of opponents (whether it be Romans or heretics).

Duvduv

Shesh, don't you think this might just be a bit far off base?
I mean you could just as easily comment that the Spanish pronunciation of Jesus ("Khesoos") is a play on the word HASOOS. But where does it get you?

Sheshbazzar

No. I don't.

LOOK AT MY TAG; "Real Name: Jessie, son of Bessie, -never- Je'sus."

It is there for a reason. As it has been for many years.

Well intended Hispanic friends used to call me 'Hay-sooce', and tell me that my name was Hay-sooce or 'Jesus' in Spanish.
I put up with it for years, until I realized it was dishonoring the name that my mother and father had given me, and dishonoring the name of my dear departed mother, causing that harmonizing alliterative 'Bessie' > Jessie' connection that was intended, to become obscured and forgotten.

Exactly as is the case with the name of the famous man from Galilee. They change and Hellenize that name he was given, so that his Fathers name is no longer to be heard in it.
Does Jee-zuz sound at all like the Name 'YAH' to you ? Does 'sibboleth' sound like 'shibboleth'.
To a devout Hebrew even a difference that small can be the difference between life and death.

We can pronounce Adam, Issachar, Sheshbazzar, or even 'Mahershalalhashbaz'. If we have any respect for the truth, we can certainly pronounce the name Yahshua. We are NOT all Greeks. And we DO NOT need to 'Hellenize' Hebrew names.


Yes. I am absolutely dead serious regarding 'Ha-sooce' or 'Ea-sooce' based on what I have read in the Hebrew.

I believe that 'The Horse' 'hey-sooce' trope was a subtle mockery of the god and the religion of the Greeks from the time of the Tanaka's composition.
Hebrew's did not like having the Ionaian's Zeus 'sooce' rammed down their throats by Hellenic culture even back then.
They were small, and Hellenistic culture was alread huge, its religion already influential, arrogant, and overbearing. So the Hebrew scribes responded by composing their religious texts with a subliminal mocking message against the worthless and vain 'horse' of the Greeks. Even most 'Jews' wouldn't 'get it' but the constant alliterations in very negative contexts would serve to keep them unconciously on guard against associations with ha'sooce.
The Bible's writers would have been very familiar with the tale of the 'Trojan' horse, They came up with a literary 'Trojan horse' of their own.
Of course when Jews abandoned their native language and culture for the lures of Hellenism, these alliterative ques were no longer to be picked up on.

Likewise the Hebrew word for 'chariot', rechab, does not simply mean 'a wheeled cart', or chariot, it means 'that which follows', and applies even to groups of persons who form a 'retinue'. This is why there is so much prophecy about 'horses' and 'chariots' and their 'riders' being thrown and confounded.

Duvduv

Are you suggesting that all references to "horse" ("ha-soos") in the Tanakh originates as a code parody of the Jesus that followed on the Zeus character?! Here is a list of some refereuces, but it leaves out others, i.e. Psalm 147.
I always thought the name Zeus had something to do with the word DEUS. Plus sometimes the Tanakh refers to the plural (SOOSIM) and not the singular. Besides, the word for HORSE is SOOS and the HE is merely the article. It doesn't always have to be used with the word SOOS.

www.openbible.info/topics/horses

But aren't you asking a totally separate question, i.e. why someone among Greeks didn't leave the name Joshua/Yeshua alone like it did Abraham, Isaac, etc.?? Are you suggesting also that the name YESOOS (whether or not related to the horse) is an independent name in Greek, or was invented specifically to deal with the name Joshua and is not merely a rendition of the name Yeshua?? How does Greek deal with names like Zecharia, Isaiah, Elijah, etc.?

TedM

Blah blah. I was just pointing out your apparent ignorance of what writings have been attributed to Paul. Take it or leave it, but there is no need to go on a rampage, is there?

I actually was answering your question: yes, the miraculous aspects of Acts CAN be discounted by HJrs because of the more down-to-earth accounts in Galatians and 1 Cor - which reasonably could be seen as further evidence that those writings were 1st century writings by Paul himself!

Sheshbazzar

No rampage. Your rejection of the miraculous supernatural experience of Paul related in Acts on the excuse it 'was not written by Paul.' is a plucked chicken that don't fly.
After you reject what is related concerning Paul's 'miraculous conversion' experience as related in Acts, WHERE does your 'Paul' come from? How did he become the most prominent and prolific author in the entire NT?

You want to use Paul as a witness to the existence a Historical human Jeezuz? HE tells you, in the first person singular, in what are allegedly his own writings and words, that his gospel is the result of a miraculous encounter with an -invisible- living dead resurrected zombie's ghost .
If you don't believe that, you don't believe 'Paul'. If you don't believe 'Paul', he is not the witness you need to evidence that there ever was any living breathing human Jeezuz behind the fables.

'Apostle Paul' by what is allegedly his own personal testimony, is in no way, shape, or form a credible witness to the existence of any historical human Jeezuz.
No more than is Billy Graham, Oral Roberts, or Charlie Manson.
People that claim to be able to hear religious shit being spoken in their heads by invisible beings, are simply not the most credible or trustworthy sources for establishing history.

TedM

I"m saying that your argument against a HJ on the basis of Paul having miraculous account with a voice is not airtight since Paul never claims an account like those in Acts. So, if you are going to reject the HJ hypothesis by using Paul's own writings, you have to do a better job than to pull up writings that weren't from Paul.

As to whether Paul's writings can serve as evidence for a HJ, there is no question that they can since he clearly references Jesus as having been a righteous Jewish man in the line of David, whose death by crucifixion and alleged resurrection began the Christian movement. There is every reason to believe that this man had lived recenty, and little reason to believe otherwise.

Whether Paul had heard of Jesus as being a teacher and miracle worker is very unclear from his writings. Certainly if Paul's writings were forged in the 2nd century in accordance to aa's conspiracy theory, there is a gaping hole here: There needs to be an explanation as to why Paul's writings don't make clear and unambiguous and frequent references to Jesus' teachings, his miracles, his family, and details of the passion event. It would be very difficult for a 2nd century forgerer familiar with the gospel forgeries of the same time to ignore them so thoroughly!

aa's conspiracy creates many more problems than it solves.

aa5874

Again, the Pauline writer SPECIFICALLY claimed that Jesus was REVEALED to him by God. See Galatians 1

Gods do NOT exist and are considered Myths.

The Pauline writer claimed he IMMEDIATELY consulted entities WITHOUT Flesh and Blood.

Entities WITHOUT Flesh and blood do NOT exist and are considered Myths.

The Pauline writer is NOT a witness of Jesus in the Pauline writings.

The Pauline claimed he was the LAST to see the Resurrected Jesus.

The Pauline writings are sources of Fiction or Myth Fables like those of the Jews, Greeks and Romans.

1. The author of Acts, writing AFTER c 59-62 CE, did NOT ever acknowledge that Paul wrote letters to Churches.

2. Letters between Paul/Seneca are deduced to be forgeries.

3. No author of the Canon used a single verse from the Pauline letters.

4. The theology in the Pauline writings are more advanced than the Synoptics.

5. No Pauline letter have been found and dated to the 1st century.

6. An Apologetic source, the Muratorian Canon, claimed the Pauline letters were composed After Revelation by John.

7. An Apologetic Source, First Apology attributed to Justin, claimed the Memoirs of the Apostles were read in the Churches--NOT the Pauline Epistles.

8. None of the acquaintances of the Pauline writer have been found in 1st century writings.

9. Barnabas is associated with Paul---writings attributed to Barnabas are not dated to the 1st century.

10. The early Gospels do NOT claim Jesus died for our sins--the Pauline writer claim Jesus died for our sins which is found in the later Gospels.

11. No author of the Canon claimed over 500 people saw the resurrected Jesus--only the Pauline writer.

12. No author of the Canon claimed that without the Resurrection there would be NO remission of Sins--Only the Pauline writer.

13. An Apologetic source, Hippolytus, claimed Marcion did NOT use the Pauline writings.

14. An Apologetic source, Ephraim the Syrian, wrote Three Prose Against Marcion and did NOT acknowledge that Marcion used the Pauline writings.

15. Apologetic sources, Eusebius and Origen, claimed Paul was ALIVE after gLuke was written--gLuke is considered to have been written long after the Fall of the Temple.

The evidence clearly suggest that the Pauline writings are historically bogus.

The Pauline writings are 2nd century or later Anti-Marcionite documents are were unknown up to the writings of Justin Martyr c 150 CE.

Sheshbazzar

Not 'all'. I have never claimed 'all'.

Thanks for the Hebrew lesson. I read Hebrew well enough to be aware of the various usages.

I didn't ask this as a question. but carry on.
The Greek form Ἰησοῦς -'Eay'sooce' does NOT convey the pronunciation of the Hebrew name. Worse, it does not at all convey the sense of the Hebrew name.
The spelling Ἰησοῦς in Greek is essentially meaningless, just an empty noise, any meaning or significance it has, is only extracted from some measure of knowledge of the Hebrew name יהושע which is loaded with meaning.

The change from 'Joshua' (YAH shua) was first accomplished in OT times with the introduction of The LXX, where the name of Moses successor יהושע got 'translated' by Greek letters into Ἰησοῦν, which is not actually a 'translation' at all properly speaking, as it does not convey any meaning at all from the original language (Hebrew) to the receiving language (Greek). So what it is, is a supposed 'transliteration', an attempt to convey the pronunciation of the Hebrew name by means of using equivalent Greek letters in an attempt to reproduce the vocalization.

And this is where it falls down because the Greek 'transliteration' while correctly recognizing and rendering the theophonic יה 'YH' or 'YAH' (Heb 'Yahh') by 'IA' or 'ία', as they do in thousands of other instances, instead in this instance went with 'Ἰη' or Ie, swapping the letter η eta in place of the α alpha.

Then as the Greek alphabet does not have a letter that can produce the 'sh' sound of the Hebrew letter ש 'shin', they employed σ 'sigma' (tantamount to turning 'shibboleth' into Sibboleth' (Judges 12:6)
[Just like 'Shibboleth', יהושע (Yah shua > 'Help of YAH' > 'Help of the Lord') could and did -in pronunciation- serve as a military 'watchword' or 'password' for identifying foe from ally.]

The fourth Greek letter they used was in their 'transliteration' was ο omicron, the letter 'o', which is not the phonetic value of the Hebrew ו 'waw 'u' which is vocalized as in הושועה 'ho'shuah' but is not actually a written letter in the form of the word/name יהושע 'Yahshua'.

The fiifth Greek letter they used in their 'transliteration' is ῦ upsilon gives the long 'u' sound as in sooce.

And at this point this is one form of the name 'Jesus' Ἰησοῦ = Iēsou pronounced as 'Eay'soo' as in Matt 1:1

To this form of the Greek spelled name is sometimes (as in the case of Numbers 13:16 and Matt. 1:21 for example) added a sixth letter ν or ς 'sigma' being a final 's' sound, which is a Greek language masculine gender indicator that is not at all present in the Hebrew.

What is ended up with in either the form Ἰησοῦ or the forms Ἰησοῦν or Ἰησοῦς is not an accurate 'transliteration' of the Hebrew יהושע nor is it in any sense a 'translation' of that name.

What it is, is a corrupt bastardization that became 'traditionalized'. Which in itself perhaps would never have made much difference ....until the Church came along with its Roman swords and tortures and forced men to swear by this bastardized and fabricated name or forfeit ther lives. Murdering countless millions over a name that wasn't worth the parcment that it was written on, Singing and chanting its 'glories' to the music of their victims screams.
And people are still stupid and evil enough to look at that history of fraud, and of every evil work under the sun, 'by their fruits shall you know them', and yet join themselves to such 'for the sake of ' this utterly bogus Greek name.

But Providence has a way of biting all evil bastards in the ass in the end.

Revelations 17-19:21 tells the story of what is ultimately planned for these; discredited and destroyed, meat for the vultures.